Comments on: Justice Thomas and Constitutional “Stare Indecisis” http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: James N. Markels http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12117 James N. Markels Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:08:27 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12117 Whoops, I mis-read Daniel's comment concerning Justice Holmes. Please disregard the first sentence of my last post. However, I will disagree with the idea that Roger was taking a sociological tack rather than a psychological one. Accusing someone of being "uncomfortable with his life" and basing their motivations and decisionmaking solely on that is pure trash psychology. Whoops, I mis-read Daniel’s comment concerning Justice Holmes. Please disregard the first sentence of my last post. However, I will disagree with the idea that Roger was taking a sociological tack rather than a psychological one. Accusing someone of being “uncomfortable with his life” and basing their motivations and decisionmaking solely on that is pure trash psychology.

]]> By: James N. Markels http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12115 James N. Markels Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:17:37 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12115 Daniel, that Justice Thomas takes a different tack than Justice Holmes doesn't make him anti-intellectual. In fact, the willingness to question precepts that are considered foundational is the very essence of intellectualism. What's funny about all of this is that the same people who celebrate "intellectual" artists, directors, and professors who throw out the rules and blaze a new trail suddenly accuse a judge who does the same thing as "anti-intellectual." Of course, the Warren Court was blazing its own trail compared to prior Courts, but you wouldn't call them "anti-intellectual" for their decisions that threw out over 100 years of jurisprudence based on little more than shaky social theory. So why does Justice Thomas get the bum rap? Because he's not going in the direction his critics want him to, that's all. After all, if he wrote a concurrence that advocated rethinking, say, the whole Zelman line of cases dealing with public funding of private schools, Yale and Harvard professors would stand up and cheer his, to them, sudden embracement of "nuance" and "intellectualism" and blah-blah-blah. In truth, it's nothing more than sheepish flag-waving. Case in point is Roger's notion that Justice Thomas' tendency to not ask questions at oral argument is someone indicative that he is unable to engage in or scornful of "the ultimate intellectual exercise." Sorry to burst your bubble, but by the time oral argument has come along, most appellate judges are already decided as to their position. They might have a few contours to negotiate, but most of that happens between the judges in chambers, not in public. Most of oral argument is simply cat-and-mouse, where some judges relish skewering hapless attorneys to feed their egos, and Justice Thomas sees no need to engage in that. If it's not already in the briefs or the voluminous record of the case that is already on his desk, it's not coming out in oral argument either. Oral argument is really a formality. It's exciting, challenging, dramatic -- and ultimately not very important. What does he have to prove? His opinions do more than enough talking for him. Indeed, the ultimate intellectual exercise is the crafting of opinions, both to attract votes in the current case and to have an eye toward future cases. As Goldstein points out, Justice Thomas has had some limited success in the former part, and great success in the latter. He thinks more about where the law is going than anybody else on the Court. In contrast, Justice O'Connor was probably the least concerned about the future of law -- she only addressed the case in front of her. In many ways, her political horse-trading and convoluted opinions that only made future cases more difficult to analyze was the true epitome of anti-intellectualism. But hey, since she sometimes threw the leftists a bone, she got a free pass. And again, Roger tries to argue that Justice Thomas' willingness to rethink an area of law was a rejection of "nuance" and, thus, anti-intellectual. Note the complete lack of any consideration of the merits of Justice Thomas' position. There have been plenty of cases where he has waded into the nuance pool with the rest of them, but he's also able to get his head out of those quibblings and take a hard look at the law behind them. Again, the true intellectuals in other fields have never been those who became mired in nuances and quibbles, but those who were able to rethink their field from the ground up. Even in law, you see people like Judge Posner who are hailed for rethinking all of law through the lens of economics, or those behind feminist legal theory, as trailblazing "intellectuals." What's the difference with Justice Thomas? I'll give you a hint: it's not anything to do with Justice Thomas. Daniel, that Justice Thomas takes a different tack than Justice Holmes doesn’t make him anti-intellectual. In fact, the willingness to question precepts that are considered foundational is the very essence of intellectualism. What’s funny about all of this is that the same people who celebrate “intellectual” artists, directors, and professors who throw out the rules and blaze a new trail suddenly accuse a judge who does the same thing as “anti-intellectual.” Of course, the Warren Court was blazing its own trail compared to prior Courts, but you wouldn’t call them “anti-intellectual” for their decisions that threw out over 100 years of jurisprudence based on little more than shaky social theory. So why does Justice Thomas get the bum rap? Because he’s not going in the direction his critics want him to, that’s all. After all, if he wrote a concurrence that advocated rethinking, say, the whole Zelman line of cases dealing with public funding of private schools, Yale and Harvard professors would stand up and cheer his, to them, sudden embracement of “nuance” and “intellectualism” and blah-blah-blah. In truth, it’s nothing more than sheepish flag-waving.

Case in point is Roger’s notion that Justice Thomas’ tendency to not ask questions at oral argument is someone indicative that he is unable to engage in or scornful of “the ultimate intellectual exercise.” Sorry to burst your bubble, but by the time oral argument has come along, most appellate judges are already decided as to their position. They might have a few contours to negotiate, but most of that happens between the judges in chambers, not in public. Most of oral argument is simply cat-and-mouse, where some judges relish skewering hapless attorneys to feed their egos, and Justice Thomas sees no need to engage in that. If it’s not already in the briefs or the voluminous record of the case that is already on his desk, it’s not coming out in oral argument either. Oral argument is really a formality. It’s exciting, challenging, dramatic — and ultimately not very important. What does he have to prove? His opinions do more than enough talking for him.

Indeed, the ultimate intellectual exercise is the crafting of opinions, both to attract votes in the current case and to have an eye toward future cases. As Goldstein points out, Justice Thomas has had some limited success in the former part, and great success in the latter. He thinks more about where the law is going than anybody else on the Court. In contrast, Justice O’Connor was probably the least concerned about the future of law — she only addressed the case in front of her. In many ways, her political horse-trading and convoluted opinions that only made future cases more difficult to analyze was the true epitome of anti-intellectualism. But hey, since she sometimes threw the leftists a bone, she got a free pass.

And again, Roger tries to argue that Justice Thomas’ willingness to rethink an area of law was a rejection of “nuance” and, thus, anti-intellectual. Note the complete lack of any consideration of the merits of Justice Thomas’ position. There have been plenty of cases where he has waded into the nuance pool with the rest of them, but he’s also able to get his head out of those quibblings and take a hard look at the law behind them. Again, the true intellectuals in other fields have never been those who became mired in nuances and quibbles, but those who were able to rethink their field from the ground up. Even in law, you see people like Judge Posner who are hailed for rethinking all of law through the lens of economics, or those behind feminist legal theory, as trailblazing “intellectuals.” What’s the difference with Justice Thomas? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not anything to do with Justice Thomas.

]]> By: Roger Friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12113 Roger Friedman Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:24:09 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12113 Re leap of faith and anti-intellectualism, see Thomas' interview with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN. And, of course, his refusal to participate in the ultimate intellectual exercise, oral argument in the Supreme Court. As for the problem with anti-intellectualism on the Court, there are several legal reasoning processes that require intellectual effort. One is distinguishing between cases, another is extracting general principles from fact-bound decisions. Often the distinctions are quite fine (and the question may be whether the distinction makes a difference), and the general principles can relate to nuances of or exceptions to other general principles. (As Tom notes, it is rare that a new, broad general principle will suddenly arise.) Several years ago, there was an Indian case in which Breyer wrote a really hashed-up decision that resulted in multiple opinions from the Court. One was from Thomas, who previously and since has been as silent in Indian cases as he is in oral argument, saying that the basic principle of Indian law that governed the case should be reconsidered. This is justice of the Red Queen, "off with his head" variety. Re leap of faith and anti-intellectualism, see Thomas’ interview with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN. And, of course, his refusal to participate in the ultimate intellectual exercise, oral argument in the Supreme Court. As for the problem with anti-intellectualism on the Court, there are several legal reasoning processes that require intellectual effort. One is distinguishing between cases, another is extracting general principles from fact-bound decisions. Often the distinctions are quite fine (and the question may be whether the distinction makes a difference), and the general principles can relate to nuances of or exceptions to other general principles. (As Tom notes, it is rare that a new, broad general principle will suddenly arise.) Several years ago, there was an Indian case in which Breyer wrote a really hashed-up decision that resulted in multiple opinions from the Court. One was from Thomas, who previously and since has been as silent in Indian cases as he is in oral argument, saying that the basic principle of Indian law that governed the case should be reconsidered. This is justice of the Red Queen, “off with his head” variety.

]]> By: Daniel Thomas http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12106 Daniel Thomas Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:02:02 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12106 James. Roger's remarks really reflect a sociological not psychological standpoint. I agree with him that J.Thomas is an anti-intellectual. But maybe Roger should offer a intellectual dicussion as to why that is a problem. Holmes always said the life of the law was expereince; he never said it was logic; he never limited it to mere intellectual expereince. J.Thomas has simply taken an individualistic approach to that line of thinking. A psychological POV would say that not only does J.Thomas's opinions reflect his upbringing, it is fitting and proper that they do. The "leap" that Roger sees really isn't a leap at all only a minor turn of the screw. James. Roger’s remarks really reflect a sociological not psychological standpoint. I agree with him that J.Thomas is an anti-intellectual. But maybe Roger should offer a intellectual dicussion as to why that is a problem. Holmes always said the life of the law was expereince; he never said it was logic; he never limited it to mere intellectual expereince. J.Thomas has simply taken an individualistic approach to that line of thinking. A psychological POV would say that not only does J.Thomas’s opinions reflect his upbringing, it is fitting and proper that they do. The “leap” that Roger sees really isn’t a leap at all only a minor turn of the screw.

]]> By: James N. Markels http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12100 James N. Markels Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:49:12 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12100 Gee, Roger, it would help bolster your "anti-intellectual" accusation if you actually managed to not be so anti-intellectual in your statements. And no, acting like a freshman taking Psych 101 doesn't count as intellectual. Gee, Roger, it would help bolster your “anti-intellectual” accusation if you actually managed to not be so anti-intellectual in your statements. And no, acting like a freshman taking Psych 101 doesn’t count as intellectual.

]]> By: Roger Friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12098 Roger Friedman Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:37:31 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12098 Tom has to be polite because he has to argue before Justice Thomas. But the fact is that Thomas is anti-intellectual, and anything that requires too much thinking he believes must be wrong. So he makes a leap of faith and wherever he lands, there he is (and, by the grace of God, must have been intended to have been). Because he is unwilling to figure out why he is so uncomfortable with his life, he usually ends up where he started, with an authoritarian grandfather in fundamentalist backwoods Georgia. With respect to the lack of a vibrant left on the Court, neither Stevens nor Warren were selected for their leftism, but rather reflect the egalitarianism of those who experienced the Depression and World War II. Certainly Harlan, Whittaker and Stewart were nothing if not mainstream. Brennan was an Irish politico, not some wild-eyed radical. Even Douglas was far from a supporter of the left; although an iconoclast, he was an ambitious social climber and no fan of the Wobblies of his native Washington. Marshall was appointed to be the first black Justice, and although he had been a pathbreaking litigator and activist, he was a disillusioned old man by the time he reached the Court. So if there is no vibrant leftism, it is because egalitarianism went out of fashion (and monarchism/social darwinism came in) under Reagan. After all, Breyer is just a smart, ambitious rich kid. And Tom, would you please tell us where are all the "uncommited moderates" to be lost? Tom has to be polite because he has to argue before Justice Thomas. But the fact is that Thomas is anti-intellectual, and anything that requires too much thinking he believes must be wrong. So he makes a leap of faith and wherever he lands, there he is (and, by the grace of God, must have been intended to have been). Because he is unwilling to figure out why he is so uncomfortable with his life, he usually ends up where he started, with an authoritarian grandfather in fundamentalist backwoods Georgia.
With respect to the lack of a vibrant left on the Court, neither Stevens nor Warren were selected for their leftism, but rather reflect the egalitarianism of those who experienced the Depression and World War II. Certainly Harlan, Whittaker and Stewart were nothing if not mainstream. Brennan was an Irish politico, not some wild-eyed radical. Even Douglas was far from a supporter of the left; although an iconoclast, he was an ambitious social climber and no fan of the Wobblies of his native Washington. Marshall was appointed to be the first black Justice, and although he had been a pathbreaking litigator and activist, he was a disillusioned old man by the time he reached the Court. So if there is no vibrant leftism, it is because egalitarianism went out of fashion (and monarchism/social darwinism came in) under Reagan. After all, Breyer is just a smart, ambitious rich kid.
And Tom, would you please tell us where are all the “uncommited moderates” to be lost?

]]> By: Hans Bader http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12092 Hans Bader Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:46:22 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12092 Tinker wasn't a garbage decision. It was a fairly sensible, middle of the road decision, which sought to maintain both liberty and order. It also flowed logically from past Supreme Court rulings. Soon after the Supreme Court first recognized that the First Amendment applied to state and local governments (not just Congress), see Near v. Minnesota (1931) (overturning state speech restriction for the first time), it recognized that it applies to the public schools, too, see West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) (striking down compelled flag salutes). So the idea that the First Amendment contains a selective exception for the schools, that leaves students uniquely without any free speech rights, is not only bad policy, but not supported by history, which doesn't draw sharp distinctions between schools and other units of local government. Of course, the needs of school discipline makes free speech far from absolute in K-12 schools. But free speech is not a major impediment to order and discipline in the schools, as Justice Thomas suggested. It doesn't require tolerance for disruptive behavior, unlike the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which makes it very difficult to suspend violent students who claim to have learning disabilities or emotional or behavioral disabilities. If you want to restore order in the schools, take aim at the IDEA, not the Constitution. Amend the statutes, don't flout the Constitution. I contrast the lack of disruption resulting from free speech in the schools with the great ongoing disruption (and teacher attrition) resulting from the IDEA in my discussion of the Morse v. Frederick case in this year's Cato Supreme Court Review. See Hans Bader, Bong Hits 4 Jesus: The First Amendment Takes a Hit, 2006-2007 Cato Supreme Court Review 133, 158-161 (2007). I generally agree with Justice Thomas's opinions, which are interesting to read and thought-provoking, but in a few areas, such as preemption and student free speech rights, he is unfortunately mistaken. Tinker wasn’t a garbage decision. It was a fairly sensible, middle of the road decision, which sought to maintain both liberty and order.

It also flowed logically from past Supreme Court rulings. Soon after the Supreme Court first recognized that the First Amendment applied to state and local governments (not just Congress), see Near v. Minnesota (1931) (overturning state speech restriction for the first time), it recognized that it applies to the public schools, too, see West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) (striking down compelled flag salutes).

So the idea that the First Amendment contains a selective exception for the schools, that leaves students uniquely without any free speech rights, is not only bad policy, but not supported by history, which doesn’t draw sharp distinctions between schools and other units of local government.

Of course, the needs of school discipline makes free speech far from absolute in K-12 schools.

But free speech is not a major impediment to order and discipline in the schools, as Justice Thomas suggested.

It doesn’t require tolerance for disruptive behavior, unlike the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which makes it very difficult to suspend violent students who claim to have learning disabilities or emotional or behavioral disabilities.

If you want to restore order in the schools, take aim at the IDEA, not the Constitution. Amend the statutes, don’t flout the Constitution.

I contrast the lack of disruption resulting from free speech in the schools with the great ongoing disruption (and teacher attrition) resulting from the IDEA in my discussion of the Morse v. Frederick case in this year’s Cato Supreme Court Review. See Hans Bader, Bong Hits 4 Jesus: The First Amendment Takes a Hit, 2006-2007 Cato Supreme Court Review 133, 158-161 (2007).

I generally agree with Justice Thomas’s opinions, which are interesting to read and thought-provoking, but in a few areas, such as preemption and student free speech rights, he is unfortunately mistaken.

]]> By: Stephen Jaros http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12088 Stephen Jaros Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:19:30 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12088 John, you don't get it: the constitution was re-ratified by the warren court. its decisions are now "foundational". :) Thomas is correct: the founders would have been amazed to discover that their 1st amendment handiwork meant that kids have "free speech" rights at school. Doubtless, they understood that the schoolmaster ran the ship, and that students were to speak when spoken to, period. John, you don’t get it: the constitution was re-ratified by the warren court. its decisions are now “foundational”. :)

Thomas is correct: the founders would have been amazed to discover that their 1st amendment handiwork meant that kids have “free speech” rights at school. Doubtless, they understood that the schoolmaster ran the ship, and that students were to speak when spoken to, period.

]]> By: Bob Jones http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12086 Bob Jones Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:21:11 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12086 John Friedman, the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech." Where's the clause that carves out the "schoolchild" exception, rendering the First Amendment not applicable in schools? To the great "originalist" & "textualist" Thomas, the plain text of the First Amendment, & its clear absolutism, apparently poses no problem for him when he's more interested in using his position as a Justice to strike back at all those liberal, druggie hippies who said mean things about him over a dozen years ago. John Friedman, the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law . . .abridging the freedom of speech.”

Where’s the clause that carves out the “schoolchild” exception, rendering the First Amendment not applicable in schools?

To the great “originalist” & “textualist” Thomas, the plain text of the First Amendment, & its clear absolutism, apparently poses no problem for him when he’s more interested in using his position as a Justice to strike back at all those liberal, druggie hippies who said mean things about him over a dozen years ago.

]]> By: James N. Markels http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12085 James N. Markels Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:39:47 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12085 "Hence, arguments are going to have to be won on their merits, not through the route of securing liberal votes." Shouldn't that ALWAYS be the case? The real problem for the legal leftists, it seems to me, is that when confronted by the "big ideas" and "merits" presented by the likes of Justices Scalia and Thomas, the response has been terribly weak. When the best argument you have for not overturning a given precedent is "stare decisis," then you deserve to lose. Justice Thomas is dancing on the Third Rail of jurisprudence if only to convince the other justices that these are debates worth having. His concurrences have not yet become majorities. But watch out, because a "left-field" opinion that has the best of the merits will eventually become the majority position, pace Rehnquist's dissent in Nyquist eventually becoming the majority opinion in Zelman. Goldstein is right -- the Court needs more big thinkers like Justice Thomas. The only question is, how will the progressives compete? “Hence, arguments are going to have to be won on their merits, not through the route of securing liberal votes.”

Shouldn’t that ALWAYS be the case?

The real problem for the legal leftists, it seems to me, is that when confronted by the “big ideas” and “merits” presented by the likes of Justices Scalia and Thomas, the response has been terribly weak. When the best argument you have for not overturning a given precedent is “stare decisis,” then you deserve to lose.

Justice Thomas is dancing on the Third Rail of jurisprudence if only to convince the other justices that these are debates worth having. His concurrences have not yet become majorities. But watch out, because a “left-field” opinion that has the best of the merits will eventually become the majority position, pace Rehnquist’s dissent in Nyquist eventually becoming the majority opinion in Zelman. Goldstein is right — the Court needs more big thinkers like Justice Thomas. The only question is, how will the progressives compete?

]]> By: John Friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12078 John Friedman Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:00:00 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12078 You regard a kid's right to free speech inside a school as a "foundational constitutional doctrine" of the sort Thomas is willing to consider revisiting? Did I miss the Federalist section on student rights? Tinker was a garbage decision, creating rights that did not exist before. Foundational? Please. You regard a kid’s right to free speech inside a school as a “foundational constitutional doctrine” of the sort Thomas is willing to consider revisiting?

Did I miss the Federalist section on student rights?

Tinker was a garbage decision, creating rights that did not exist before. Foundational? Please.

]]> By: Eric Olson http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12075 Eric Olson Tue, 09 Oct 2007 01:33:35 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12075 Though I find myself fundamentally disagreeing with Thomas' approach, I am continually fascinated that someone with similar views on interpretation, like Justice Black, could differ so significantly in the end result. I admire Justice Thomas, if for no other reason than that he is very consistent (minus, of course, Bush v. Gore). Though I find myself fundamentally disagreeing with Thomas’ approach, I am continually fascinated that someone with similar views on interpretation, like Justice Black, could differ so significantly in the end result. I admire Justice Thomas, if for no other reason than that he is very consistent (minus, of course, Bush v. Gore).

]]> By: ronsaathoff http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12074 ronsaathoff Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:30:45 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12074 Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas. Stare indecesis? Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas. Stare indecesis?

]]> By: Stephen Jaros http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/comment-page-1/#comment-12073 Stephen Jaros Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:56:02 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justice-thomas-and-constitutional-stare-indecisis/#comment-12073 While i am a great admirer of Justice Thomas's jurisprudence, i have to admit i find it somewhat baffling that a host of highly intelligent, educated legal minds would come together, even online, and hold a 'symposium' on his views, all because, and just because .... he has one vote on the US Supreme Court! Can't we go back to the good old days when SCOTUS Justices weren't treated like legends or villians in their own time? Those days surely did exist once, didn't they? While i am a great admirer of Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence, i have to admit i find it somewhat baffling that a host of highly intelligent, educated legal minds would come together, even online, and hold a ’symposium’ on his views, all because, and just because …. he has one vote on the US Supreme Court!

Can’t we go back to the good old days when SCOTUS Justices weren’t treated like legends or villians in their own time? Those days surely did exist once, didn’t they?

]]>